Author Topic: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?  (Read 2351 times)

Offline mike77

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Karma: 8
Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« on: September 19, 2012, 02:24:11 AM »
I've been looking at, and shooting, a number of what I've heard referred to as 'Slim 9s'. Basically the compact single stack 9mm handguns. Just some of my observations, but I'd love to hear others thoughts as I consider which one to buy.

Kel-Tec PF9: The slide release was a stretch for me to use. Shooting it I had a failure to fire, failure to eject, or both with each magazine. Sometimes multiple with each magazine.

Beretta Nano: With a fully loaded magazine I could not get it to latch with the slide closed. One of the guys at the range said "Oh, it's European style. You're supposed to have the slide open when you put the magazine in." sounds fishy, but whatever. Had several failure to fire. Was a comfortable gun to shoot otherwise.

Ruger LC9: A solid gun with no problems. Didn't stand out either positively or negatively. I like that it is hammer fired. If I have a failure to fire I can pull the trigger again since it is likely my fault.

S&W Shield: Like the LC9, a solid gun with nothing standing out good or bad.

Sccy CPX-2: Actually a double stack, but not much wider than the single stacks. A decent gun, especially for the price. I had problems with the slide going into battery, but that could have been because it was a rental and the range guy said that it really needed a cleaning.

Kahr CM9: Several failure to ejects and a bit harder hitting than the others.

Walther PPS: A nice gun to shoot. I was the most accurate with it, but that could be just a matter of the sights being better adjusted than the other rental guns. An interesting magazine release using the trigger guard.

So anyone care to add any comments on any of these? I think I'm trying to decide between the S&W, the Ruger and the Walther. Decisions, decisions....

Offline Cooter Brown

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
  • Karma: 37
    • The Regular Guy Review
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2012, 05:32:16 AM »
There's a short thread on this at http://thesurvivalpodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=36224.msg406987#msg406987 that way of a little help.

I've got a thread on the Shield (which is my pick) at http://thesurvivalpodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=36380.msg408724#msg408724
“The best way to execute French cooking is to get good and loaded and whack the hell out of a chicken. Bon appétit. ”
                     -Julia Child
         
On the Web at:  The Regular Guy Review



Offline Chemsoldier

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1330
  • Karma: 137
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2012, 06:50:36 AM »


Ruger LC9: A solid gun with no problems. Didn't stand out either positively or negatively. I like that it is hammer fired. If I have a failure to fire I can pull the trigger again since it is likely my fault.


How would a failure to fire be your fault?  I could see if you limp wristed the gun and had a failure to cycle properly (yep, that would be your fault), but with a failure to fire...hammer goes back, hammer falls forward.  How would you mess it up?
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else"
-Winston Churchill

"You think health care is expensive now? Wait until its free!"
-P.J. O'Rourke

Offline Cooter Brown

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
  • Karma: 37
    • The Regular Guy Review
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2012, 07:00:24 AM »
that way of a little help.

I really shouldn't post before I've had my second cup of coffee; the above should read "that may be of a little help"
“The best way to execute French cooking is to get good and loaded and whack the hell out of a chicken. Bon appétit. ”
                     -Julia Child
         
On the Web at:  The Regular Guy Review



Offline ID_Joker

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
  • Karma: 14
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2012, 09:41:45 AM »
Feedback regarding the Ruger LC9:  I have an LCP. Not exactly the same gun, but ....  Reason I bring it up is that I've had trouble with rust.  No matter what I do to keep this think clean, the slide starts to get rust on it every couple weeks.  I've never had this problem with any other gun, including my other Rugers.  I think the LC9 is built pretty similarly to the LCP, so guessing it has the same finish.

Offline ncjeeper

  • Most Noble Order of the Garter Snake
  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4030
  • Karma: 90
  • Oooops!
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2012, 01:43:12 PM »
Im on a waiting list for the shield. Everybody says its the cats meow. Im a S&W fan anyways so my vote is alittle bias.
The early bird gets the worm.....But the second mouse gets the cheese.

Offline 2ADefense

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 0
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2012, 03:50:48 PM »
I chose the LC9 after shooting  the Kahr CW9 and the PF9.  Sadly, at the time there were no Shields to be found in my area - even for handling at the local gun stores. 

Honestly, I liked the feel and shootability of the Kahr best in that group.  The problem for me is that although the Kahr has a wonderful trigger, it is a bit too light for me to be comfortable carrying it in a pocket holster. 

I though the Kel-Tec was OK, and it shot fine for me.  I wasn't a huge fan of the sights, and overall the gun seemed just a bit 'unpolished' to me.

I really like the feel of the LC9, and overall fit and finish are good.  My only quibble is with the fit of the magazine that came with mine.  The spring tension is a bit high, so the bottom of the magazine is pushed out very slightly from the base of the gun (just a tiny fraction of an inch).  This has never caused a stoppage when shooting, but occasionally on loads/reloads the gun will not slide back into battery from a lock-back or a rerack until I push the magazine up.  My extra magazines don't have this issue, and I'm hopeful that with more use the spring in this mag will lighten up enough for the problem to resolve itself.

The LC9 is a breeze to carry and conceal, but I suspect that would hold true for all of the models you've listed.

Offline PorcupineKate

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
  • Karma: 27
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2012, 03:53:13 PM »
I love my little Kahr 9mm MK. 
I have had it for 7 or 8 years now.  It  has never jammed and is really easy for me to conceal carry.  It has a really short grip but I have tiny hands and I don't need the grip extenders at all.  I find it easier to shoot than the Keltec since it has an all stainless steel frame.  It is also really easy to take apart and clean.  No tools needed and it breaks down to 5 parts including the pin that holds it together.

Offline NWPilgrim

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 984
  • Karma: 63
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2012, 04:48:51 PM »
After shooting the LC9 and PF9 and handling the Shield I bought the Shield.  The other two had very long hard triggers.  I really like the Shield.  Very well made, replaceable sights, and as accurate as my Glocks.  Nice trigger!

Only down side is that the PF9 could possibly be put in the pocket since it is slim and pretty much snag free and lightweight, whereas the Shield is a bit bulky and heavy for the pocket.  As a compact belt gun the Shield is great, especially for IWB and/or appendix carry.  I also find the Shield being a bit flatter than my Glocks prints less when carried in a vest with hidden holster pocket.

I normally wear a G27 OWB with untucked shirt.  For a bit more comfort IWB I like the Shield. For pocket I have a P3AT.
There have always been times like this, and there will be again. Will we rise to the challenges or get run over?

Offline chrisdfw

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1138
  • Karma: 39
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2012, 09:29:17 PM »
Feedback regarding the Ruger LC9:  I have an LCP. Not exactly the same gun, but ....  Reason I bring it up is that I've had trouble with rust.  No matter what I do to keep this think clean, the slide starts to get rust on it every couple weeks.  I've never had this problem with any other gun, including my other Rugers.  I think the LC9 is built pretty similarly to the LCP, so guessing it has the same finish.

I also have surface rusting on mine, but will admit that I don't really care. There I said it, one of my carry guns has surface rust on the slide and I don't care (gasp).

I am thinking about getting an LC9, but I am not sure how it will do in a pocket holster.
I often carry my second gun in a pocket holster, either the LCP or a S&W442, a 9mm would be nice to match my primary Glock 19 at least for ammo

Offline Jeff NH

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Karma: 5
  • No power in the 'verse can stop me.
    • Free State Project
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2012, 06:19:48 AM »
I had a Walther PPS. Technically I still do but my wife decided it was hers a couple of years ago so I rarely use it anymore. Shoots great. At this point I am sure the round count > 10,000 and it is still in great shape.

You do need to get used to the european style mag release and I only really like to shoot it with the extended magazine which gives a little more hand room.

Offline joeinwv

  • The Bee Whisperer
  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2495
  • Karma: 88
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2012, 07:55:26 AM »
I have a KTP3AT I have carried for years. I keep thinking about "upgrading" to one of these, but am having trouble convincing myself. Why go to a bigger / heavier / harder to conceal gun to gain the marginal power increase....

I figure if I can't get out of trouble with a 380, having a 9 is not going to be the difference. Thoughts?

(Also - to the OP, I would not evaluate reliability of a handgun based on impressions from a rental gun.)

Offline MNSurvivor

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: 2
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2012, 10:10:18 AM »
I have had the Walther PPS for about 4 years.  Very concealable and comfortable IWB.  Shoots great.  No problems.  I got the factory supplied (no charge at the time, not sure now) shorter front sight to help with the very low 6 o'clock sighting picture.  Helped a bit but still need to be aware of it.

Love the gun.

Offline mike77

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Karma: 8
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2012, 11:23:51 PM »
How would a failure to fire be your fault?  I could see if you limp wristed the gun and had a failure to cycle properly (yep, that would be your fault), but with a failure to fire...hammer goes back, hammer falls forward.  How would you mess it up?

Well, I was thinking of my experience with the Kel Tec but I remember now that it is striker fired. When I was shooting it I was pulling the trigger like I was taught to shoot a rifle: slow steady trigger squeeze. I had a number of failures to fire and was told it was likely because I was being too slow and easy on the trigger. I guess that might be a potential problem with the Shield and PPS since they are both strikers also.

Offline rockrocks

  • Fledgling Prepper
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2012, 10:41:28 PM »
I have the taurus pt709 slim and liked it better than the LC9, much better trigger and shoots smoother. I know the knock some have on taurus but this model has performed flawlessly thru 300 rounds. it is my EDC in warm months, easy to conceal IWB.

I am intriuged by the shield but not enough to invest in it just on the chance I like it better long term than the 709.


Offline Melting

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Karma: 5
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2012, 09:29:08 AM »
Feedback regarding the Ruger LC9:  I have an LCP. Not exactly the same gun, but ....  Reason I bring it up is that I've had trouble with rust.  No matter what I do to keep this think clean, the slide starts to get rust on it every couple weeks.  I've never had this problem with any other gun, including my other Rugers.  I think the LC9 is built pretty similarly to the LCP, so guessing it has the same finish.

Both my LC9 and LCP developed rust on the magazine release early on. Other than that the LC9 was easy to carry, (Black Mamba, Concealment Solutions,) and utterly reliable, ate everything I fed it. The sights are great.  The long trigger pull will require practice and training but that is the fun part. I retired the LC9 for an EMP, love the single action trigger but doubling the weight. not so much.

Offline flippydidit

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1341
  • Karma: 74
  • Keep 'em shooting!
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2012, 10:10:24 AM »
Mike77,

The performance of the carry pistols (cycling failures) could be attributed to dirty guns, questionable ammo, or even shooting technique.  Are you familiar with shooting these types of pistols?  The "carry" pistols do wonders for highlighting poor shooting grips, trigger control, or flinching.  Even with experienced shooters.

That said, I carry a Keltec PF9.  I have personal/professional reasons for never buying a Ruger or S&W and the PF9 has been everything I want in a pocket 9mm.  It's there and it goes bang when I need it too.  I also agree with chrisdfw.  Surface rust on my $300 carry pistol?  In Florida?  Tell me again why I should care?
Nate
Military/civilian gunsmith/machinist
CEO and Founder of PermEscapes
PermEscapes
PermEscapes on Facebook

"One of these centuries, the brutes, private or public, who believe that they can rule their betters by force, will learn the lesson of what happens when brute force encounters mind and force."
— Ragnar Danneskjöld, from Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand)


Offline chrisdfw

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1138
  • Karma: 39
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2012, 11:02:18 AM »
I did my research and decided against the LC9 and in favor of the sig290, its a better piece of hardware. I was avle to shoot the LC9 and was not impressed, I thought the LCP was ok, but I expected more out of the LC9.

The sig was great, I was impressed immediately and bought one the next day. It was exactly what I was looking for, the only downside is the weight if you pocket it.

Offline endurance

  • Dances With Newfies
  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 8031
  • Karma: 372
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2012, 11:47:03 AM »
I did my research and decided against the LC9 and in favor of the sig290, its a better piece of hardware. I was avle to shoot the LC9 and was not impressed, I thought the LCP was ok, but I expected more out of the LC9.

The sig was great, I was impressed immediately and bought one the next day. It was exactly what I was looking for, the only downside is the weight if you pocket it.
Wow, very nice.  Didn't even know about this one.  Is there an extended mag available (at least something to hook your pinky on)?  When my PM9 wears out, that Sig is definitely going to be toward the top of my short list. 

My only problems with Sigs is the gadgetry of the decocking lever.  The double action only set up eliminates all that.  Me likey!
"There are things that you don't question when your home always smells like baking bread."  From The Hunger Games

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”   James Madison

Offline gundog

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 306
  • Karma: 15
  • It's the dog....not the gun.
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2012, 12:11:29 PM »
I've had a PF9 for a few months now.

It is very inexpensive.....it's very thin and easy to carry.

I heard quite a few stories about FTF or FTE......my personal experience has actually been good though. It has been flawless which was a little bit of a surprise.

I've shot 300 rounds or so with no mishaps, acceptable accuracy and I'm pretty happy......so much that I bought the side laser which is also very nice, I like the whole package.

It is not fun to shoot though......loud, violent and I don't shoot it more than necessary. Obviously when you shoot a larger round in a tiny gun you should expect some of that. I carry it about half the time now.

I don't have a lot of experience with the other brands so I can't compare.
Anticipate the difficult by managing the easy.
Lao Tzu

Offline chrisdfw

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1138
  • Karma: 39
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2012, 12:38:38 PM »
Wow, very nice.  Didn't even know about this one.  Is there an extended mag available (at least something to hook your pinky on)?  When my PM9 wears out, that Sig is definitely going to be toward the top of my short list. 

My only problems with Sigs is the gadgetry of the decocking lever.  The double action only set up eliminates all that.  Me likey!

I never liked DA/SA and this is my first Sig handgun (I've had sig rifles and want to get another)

There is an extended magazine, 8 rounds instead of 6, one of each came with my pistol. I bought a few extra of each type. I carry it with the flush magazine and carry the extended as a spare (when I carry a spare, I only carry a spare when I carry this pistol as my primary, I do not carry a spare magazine when this is my secondary handgun)

Offline mobilus

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: 17
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2012, 03:38:23 PM »
I have the taurus pt709 slim and liked it better than the LC9, much better trigger and shoots smoother. I know the knock some have on taurus but this model has performed flawlessly thru 300 rounds. it is my EDC in warm months, easy to conceal IWB.


rockrocks, I feel the same way about the pt709.  Carries great, have had absolutely no issues with it.

Offline endurance

  • Dances With Newfies
  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 8031
  • Karma: 372
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2012, 03:53:22 PM »
I never liked DA/SA and this is my first Sig handgun (I've had sig rifles and want to get another)

There is an extended magazine, 8 rounds instead of 6, one of each came with my pistol. I bought a few extra of each type. I carry it with the flush magazine and carry the extended as a spare (when I carry a spare, I only carry a spare when I carry this pistol as my primary, I do not carry a spare magazine when this is my secondary handgun)
Thanks for the info.  I've had two Sigs in my life, one that I wore out, a Sig 229 (which at the time was a single stack 8 shot 9mm, but now is a completely different designation and design) and a Sig 228 that I carried as a duty weapon for about 18 months before going to an H&K P7M13 (minimum mag size was 12 rounds and that's when I made the break from the DA/SA). 

Knowing that there's an 8 round option makes me very interested.  I prefer a single stack gun, but hate my pinkie hanging off in space.  thanks again for the info.
"There are things that you don't question when your home always smells like baking bread."  From The Hunger Games

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”   James Madison

Offline sdcharger

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 683
  • Karma: 10
Re: Thoughts on 'Slim 9s'?
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2012, 02:48:37 PM »
My wife carries a Walther PPS and has shot the gun during several multi day handgun classes.  It is very accurate and reliable.  The PPS is a high quality firearm with good fit and finish.  I actually enjoy shooting the PPS.

I have a Kel Tec PF9.  It has been totally reliable so far.  It is not a pleasant gun to shoot but it carries very very well.

The PPS does not carry as easy as the PF9, and costs double.  There are several single stack 9mm that are the size of the PPS and just as heavy.  I don't really think of them the same way as the Kel Tec or say the Diamondback which are really quite a bit smaller.